1[2 {"id":"C1","text":"The competitive equilibrium relative price is p1/p2 = 0.875 (closed form), confirmed by independent root-finding of z1(p).","results_keys":["price_ratio_p1_over_p2","price_ratio_numerical","price_abs_diff_closed_vs_numerical"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Conditional on using individual endowments (aggregate good 1 = 12) rather than the inconsistent summary-sheet value 14."},3 {"id":"C2","text":"Equilibrium allocation: A consumes (4.1143, 5.4), B consumes (7.8857, 4.6).","results_keys":["x1_A","x2_A","x1_B","x2_B"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Same data-resolution caveat as C1."},4 {"id":"C3","text":"Markets clear at the equilibrium price (excess demand of good 1 and 2 are zero).","results_keys":["excess_demand_good1","excess_demand_good2","aggregate_endowment_good1","aggregate_endowment_good2"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Up to floating-point rounding."},5 {"id":"C4","text":"Walras' law holds: p*z1+z2 is zero at equilibrium and below 1e-13 in absolute value across a price grid.","results_keys":["walras_law_residual","walras_law_residual_max_abs_on_price_grid"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Grid check is numerical over p in [0.01,100]."},6 {"id":"C5","text":"The summary-sheet aggregate endowment of good 1 (14) is inconsistent with the individual endowments (12); the row sum was used.","results_keys":["data_issues","aggregate_endowment_good1","aggregate_endowment_good1_summary_sheet","excess_demand_good1_vs_summary_sheet_aggregate"],"status":"supported","caveat":"Which input is wrong cannot be determined from the data; individual endowments treated as primary per TASK.md."}7]8